Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Nova Steel (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the respondent.2. Heard Ld. DR. The revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Commissioner (Appeals) after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SAIL v. CCE, Jamshedpur Development Fund, Joint Plant Committee Cess and Engineering goods Export Assistance Fund is not to be added to the assessable value of the goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that this decision of the Tribunal is overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE 4. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) overruled the decision of the Tribunal which was relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such charges are to be includible in the assessable value. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Suprem...

Surya International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT272TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant made import of second-hand main frame assemblies. Common issue is involved therefore they are being taken up together.2. The appellant made import of parts of photocopier and filed Bills of Entries by declaring the value of the goods as mentioned in the invoices. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Revenue, the same was enhanced and the goods were also ordered to be confiscated on the ground that this import is being made in violation of EXIM Policy.3. The appellants are not challenging the confiscation of the goods on the ground of valuation of EXIM Policy. The appellant is only challenging the enhancement of value of the imported goods.4. The value of the goods were enhanced by the Revenue on the ground that in the case the import made at Calcutta Port in respect of complete photocopier at higher value and in other case, t...

A.P. Solvex Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT292TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order-in-original, the issue relates to the availability of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 115/75 to the appellants. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the production of Rice Bran Oil by Solvent Extraction Process and during the down stream process of refining, also produces Fatty Acid, Gums, Waxes, Soap Stock, Acid Oil and Refined Rice Bran Oil. They have got category 'B' License issued by the Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils 8s Fats, New Delhi under the Solvent Extracted Oil, Deoiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order. They have a composite mill consisting of solvent extraction and refining unit.2. The benefit of the above said notification has been denied to the appellants on the ground that during the period in dispute (7.1.2003 to 31.10.2003), they did not carry out 100% extraction of the rice bran oil for producing refined vegetable oil and that the other by-products d...

Ellora Mechanical Products Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals M/s. Ellorra Mechanical Products Pvt. Ltd. and their Directors Mr. J.B. Aggarwal are challenging the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed on them on the ground of clandestine clearance of 'coated polyester film'.2. Shri S.D. Gaur, learned Consultant submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the process of coating bare polyester film procured from the market; that the Supreme Court recently in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi has held that "a product is a film to start with and remains the film after process of lamination or metalisation, thus there is no new distinct product which has come into existence and it would have to be concluded that there is no manufacture. Thus the Supreme Court has held that no process of manufacture takes place when the process of lamination/metalisation is carried out on duty paid film. Once the process undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture, as per the judgment of Supreme Cour...

Cce Vs. I.C. Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods are to be assessee and liable to duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The contention of the Revenue is that lipstic which is having a weight less than 10 gms is assessable under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, on the ground that these lipsticks are sold by numbers and not by weight. The contention of the revenue is that Rule 34(1)(b) of the Standards Weights & Measures (packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 only exempts the packing containing a commodity if the net weight or measure of the quantity if 20 gms. or 20 mililiters or less if sold by weight or measure.3. The contention of the respondent is that as the lipstick in question in less than 20 gms., therefore, they are exempted under Rule 34(1)(b) of the Standards Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and they are assessable to duty...

Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR1(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT663; 2005(82)DRJ233; (2006)142PLR24

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender floated by the respondent inviting offers for supply of M.S. Round, petitioner, vide letter dated 6.6.1980 submitted its offer. Inter alia, in the offer letter, petitioner stated:-'Validity : Our offer will remain valid up to 30.6.1980, thereafter subject to our confirmation.'2. Rates quoted were as under :6 mm 10 MT @ Rs.4,600/ - PMT8 mm 110 MT @ Rs.4,225/ - PMT10 mm 430 MT @ Rs.3.980/ - PMT12 mm 185 MT @ - do -16 mm 225 MT @ - do -18 mm 410 MT @ - do -20 mm 400 MT @ - do -22 mm 1165 MT @ - do -25 mm 770 MT @ - do --------------3705 MT------------3. Rates quoted were ex-works Nagpur. Sales Tax @ 4% was to be charged extra against Form 'C'.4. Offer was extended up to 10.1.1981. Admission to this effect is to be found in petitioner's letter dated 6.7.1981 (pages 18-19 of list of documents filed by the petitioner).5. Though tenders were opened on 10.6.1980, acceptance was conveyed vide telegraph dated 9.1.1981, received by peti...

Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. Ravinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT559

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1125/2004 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the impugned orders of dismissal of service issued by the respondent pursuant to a departmental proceedings with a further direction to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, while rendering the aforesaid judgment and order, has mainly proceeded on two counts. The learned Tribunal after looking into the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which reads as under:'15(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a crim...

National Association of Software and Service Companies Vs. Ajay Sood a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT596; 2005(30)PTC437(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit inter alias praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any person acting under their authority from circulating fraudulent E-mails purportedly originating from the plaintiff of using the trade mark 'NASSCOM' or any other mark confusingly similar in relation to goods or services. Prayer for rendition of accounts as well as damages has been made in the plaintiff.2. Application being IA. 2351/2005 has been filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. Application is signed on behalf of defendant No. 1 in person. On behalf of defendant No. 4, Mr. Shiv Agrawal a Director of defendant No. 4 has appended his signatures. Application is supported with the affidavits of Mr. Ajay Sood and Mr. Shiv Agrawal. On behalf of plaintiff application has been signed by Mr. Mohan Khanna. His affidavit has been enclosed Along with the application. There are 4 defendants to the suit. Defendants 2 and 3 being Ms. Shw...

Ceear Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT229TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Ceear Electronics is whether they can avail exemption under small sale exemption Notification in respect of goods manufactured in one of their factory and clear the goods at concessional rate of duty after availing Mod-vat credit in respect of goods manufactured in their second factory.2. Shri R. P. Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants in their own factory at Kirti Nagar, manufacture excisable goods and avail full exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93; that they are running another factory at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi where they avail Modvat credit of the duty and clear the goods in the brand name of others on payment of excise duty at normal rate; that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Munjal Gases and Intertec v. CCE, Ghaziabad [2001 (127) E.L.T. 609 (Tri.)]. On the other hand Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Rep...

Metzeler Automotive Profiles Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT244TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the demand of service tax is confirmed on the ground that the appellants were charging design and development charges from their customer. The lower authorities treated the appellant as consulting engineer.2. The contention of the appellant is that they are manufacturing components such as weather strips and for the manufacture of weather strips, they are manufacturing toolings. They are charging from their customer for the design and development tools and these tools in some cases were sold to their customer on payment of appropriate excise duty as well as sales tax and where the tools were not sold to their customer, the cost of tools are included in the cost of the final product at appropriate excise duty and sales tax is being paid. The contention of the appellant is that they are not covered under the definition of consulting engineer as provided in section 65(31) of the...